D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

[Desdichado]

Lastly, even though some people are mixing-and-matching, a lot of people are showing clear hesitation at using old materials with new materials. A lot of people are also talking about how they only want to use new materials, either because they are new or because they are better. So it sounds like a lot of people don't even benefit from backwards compatibility anyway.

I recall WotC saying that surveys and demand was pushing them to maintain backwards compatibility...but doesn't that seem kind of silly given the above information? I'm not sure what benefit there was to removing standardized class levels for old subclasses if old subclasses are going to be reprinted anyway. I'm not sure what benefit there was to maintaining this half-done backwards compatibility at all.

I'm not sure what "a lot of people" means, or if those are the same "lot of people" who demanded backwards compatibility (allegedly.) I don't think the surveys gaslit WotC about backwards compatibility, I think WotC gaslit the players about backwards compatibility, which was clearly a strong desire and which wasn't really delivered, even though it was promised. I don't think the backwards compatibility is any more real than it was between 3e and 3.5, or between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Sure, the systems are quite similar, but the details are all different. Which is probably why when talking freely, the WotC call it 5.5. They know it's not really backwards compatible.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure what "a lot of people" means, or if those are the same "lot of people" who demanded backwards compatibility (allegedly.) I don't think the surveys gaslit WotC about backwards compatibility, I think WotC gaslit the players about backwards compatibility, which was clearly a strong desire and which wasn't really delivered, even though it was promised. I don't think the backwards compatibility is any more real than it was between 3e and 3.5, or between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Sure, the systems are quite similar, but the details are all different. Which is probably why when talking freely, the WotC call it 5.5. They know it's not really backwards compatible.

So what woud have been true backwards compatibility... assuming it's not a reprint of the exact same game?

EDIT: I'm just confused by what some people seem to have thought backwards compatibility, yet revised rules, was actually going to be....

 

[Desdichado]

So what woud have been true backwards compatibility... assuming it's not a reprint of the exact same game?

EDIT: I'm just confused by what some people seem to have thought backwards compatibility, yet revised rules, was actually going to be....

I don't care; I'm not interested in playing 5.5, and only grudgingly willing to play in a 5e game. But clearly, based on the details in the OP, these two aren't really backwards compatible. If they're not, then WotC shouldn't have run around promising something that they couldn't really deliver on.

That said, all of the rules between OD&D, BD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e and BECMI and the RC were all pretty broadly compatible. Maybe similar to the spectrum between 3e, 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e, but with more steps in between the endpoints of compatibility, which is why people freely mixed and matched elements during that era. The lines between compatibility are kind of fuzzy, not sharp, but if the behavior claimed in the OP is accurate, then clearly these aren't considered compatible by most of the players.

 

[Yaarel]

For me, the definition of 'backward compatibility' only means, old products can be used in the new rules with minimal headache.

 

[TwoSix]

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what aspect of "backwards compatibility" hasn't been achieved. I'm playing in games where we use 2014 and 2024 material interchangeably, freely mixing and matching, and we haven't run into any issue. Heck, one of my characters is 2014 warlock multiclassed with a 2024 sorcerer, and has feats from both corebooks.

 

[Yaarel]

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what aspect of "backwards compatibility" hasn't been achieved. I'm playing in games where we use 2014 and 2024 material interchangeably, freely mixing and matching, and we haven't run into any issue. Heck, one of my characters is 2014 warlock multiclassed with a 2024 sorcerer, and has feats from both corebooks.

Yeah, even the player facing stuff is easy for a DM to put together on the fly.

Should Elves be Dexterous? No problem, pick this background. Should Elves be Charismatic? No problem, pick that background.

DMs can use any monster as-is. Let it be a cakewalk or a near-TPK. Or some DMs like to tweak it. Same as it ever was.

 

[Imaro]

I don't care; I'm not interested in playing 5.5, and only grudgingly willing to play in a 5e game. But clearly, based on the details in the OP, these two aren't really backwards compatible. If they're not, then WotC shouldn't have run around promising something that they couldn't really deliver on.

Don't care about what?? So you don't like 5e are not interested in playing 5e revised and are basing your oppinion on second hand information, that doesn't really support what you are claiming. Mainly that 5e and 5e revised aren't compatible.

That said, all of the rules between OD&D, BD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e and BECMI and the RC were all pretty broadly compatible. Maybe similar to the spectrum between 3e, 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e, but with more steps in between the endpoints of compatibility, which is why people freely mixed and matched elements during that era. The lines between compatibility are kind of fuzzy, not sharp, but if the behavior claimed in the OP is accurate, then clearly these aren't considered compatible by most of the players.

Wait... you think OD&D and AD&D 2e are compatible... but you don't think 5e and 5e revised are... Say what now? And again you're basing your rant on secondhand information... why? Why even comment if you don't actually know whether it's compatible... or better yet why assume the OP is any more accurate than the many posters stating it is compatible?

 

[Remathilis]

So what woud have been true backwards compatibility... assuming it's not a reprint of the exact same game?

EDIT: I'm just confused by what some people seem to have thought backwards compatibility, yet revised rules, was actually going to be....

I'm pretty sure some people's views on backwards compatibility means "if I have to do any conversion, it's not compatible."

 

[Imaro]

I'm pretty sure some people's views on backwards compatibility means "if I have to do any conversion, it's not compatible."

Lol... I guess Tasha's wasn't compatible with 5e then...smh.

 

[Remathilis]

Lol... I guess Tasha's wasn't compatible with 5e then...smh.

I mean, I have heard that...